What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. 30 The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you. 32 When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.
Jesus tells the parable of the two sons in the temple dispute about his authority. In this section, Matthew moves from the confrontation over “divine authority” into a set of parables of judgment that intensify the conflict with Jerusalem’s leaders (Paulist, Mt 21:23-37, p. 127). The parable of the two sons serves as the hinge between the authority dispute and the judgment parables that follow (Paulist, p. 128).
In the story, the father gives the same command to both sons: go and work in the vineyard (v. 28). One son refuses, but later changes his mind and goes (v. 29). The other son answers respectfully, but does not go (v. 30). Jesus then draws out the obvious conclusion: the father’s will is done by the one whose final response becomes obedience, not by the one whose answer remains only a spoken “yes” (v. 31). This contrast between profession and practice stands at the center of the judgment Jesus is making (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Mt 21:28-32, p. 121; Paulist, Mt 21:28-32, p. 128).
Jesus’ application is sharp. He says that “tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you” (v. 31; cf. Mt. 7:21-23). The point is not that their sins are good, but that many who openly lived against God’s law were still capable of a real change of heart when God’s signs confronted them (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Mt 21:28-32, p. 121). In other words, they may have begun with a practical “no,” but they did not stay there.
Jesus explains why this is happening by pointing back to John the Baptist. John “came to you in the way of righteousness,” but the leaders did not believe him (v. 32). Yet those considered moral outsiders did believe him. The tragedy Jesus names is that the leaders not only refused John, but refused even after they had evidence in front of them: “even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him” (v. 32). The refusal is not ignorance. It is a hardened resistance to a prophetic witness God has already provided (cf. Mt. 21:26; 11:9).
This is why Matthew places this parable right after the exchange about authority. The argument over authority is not a neutral academic question. It is bound up with whether they will recognize God’s prophetic witness when it is given. This whole dispute builds toward the conflict that will culminate in Jesus’ death, and it explicitly connects this Matthean scene with its parallels in Mark and Luke (Mk 11:27-33; Lk 20:1-8) (Paulist, Mt 21:23-37, p. 127). The parable then presses the issue to its moral center: it is possible to have the right religious language and still refuse the Father’s will, and it is possible to begin in open refusal and still be brought to obedience through repentance (Paulist Bible Commentary; Ignatius Catholic Study Bible).
Lord Jesus, give me the grace to do the Father’s will with sincerity, not merely with words. Amen.
___________________
Sources and References
- The Holy Bible, New American Bible, Revised Edition (2011).
- Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament, 2nd ed. (Ignatius Press), Mt 21:28-32 note, p. 121.
- José Enrique Aguilar Chiu et al., eds., The Paulist Biblical Commentary (2018), Mt 21:23-37 (p. 127) and Mt 21:28-32 (p. 128).
Comments